(CNSNews.com) – Three House Democrats are now pushing legislation that would
stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon
emissions—a decision the agency announced in December -- without express
permission from the Congress.
 
Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would amend the
Clean Air Act to exclude regulations based on global warming effects, while
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) has a bill that would keep the EPA from
regulating greenhouse gases at all unless approved by Congress.
 
 In April 2009 the EPA proposed an "endangerment finding" for greenhouse
gases, claiming that they "endanger the public health and welfare of current
and future generations." An endangerment finding is necessary to regulate
emissions under the Clean Air Act. On Dec. 7, the EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson officially signed the finding, opening the way to regulate emissions
of gases like carbon dioxide and methane.
 
By complying with the rules of the Clean Air Act, the EPA claims it can
begin regulating things directly, such as automobiles, without any new law
from Congress. But some Democrats, contrary to the administration's views of
the issue, are not satisfied with the EPA's new regulatory direction.
 
"I'm proud to help sponsor this bill because if Congress doesn't do
something soon, the EPA is going to cram these regulations through all on
their own," Rep. Peterson said in a statement. 
 
The Peterson bill, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.),
specifically curtails the Clean Air Act, which allows the EPA to regulate
"air pollutants," so as to exclude from regulation six greenhouse gases that
the agency thinks contribute to global warming. 
 
"The term 'air pollutant,'" the bill reads, "shall not include any of the
following solely on the basis of its effect on global climate change:  (1)
Carbon dioxide, (2) Methane, (3) Nitrous oxide, (4) Hydrofluorocarbons, (5)
Perfluorocarbons, (6) Sulfur hexafluoride." 

Peterson explained that the change was needed because the EPA was
overstepping the original intended limits of the law. "The Clean Air Act was
not meant for this," he said. "It was meant to clean up the air, to get lead
out of the air. It was not meant to fight global warming."
 
"I have no confidence that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the
Clean Air Act without doing serious damage to our economy," Peterson said.
"Americans know we're way too dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels in
this country — and I've worked hard to develop practical solutions to that
problem — but Congress should be making these types of decisions, not
unelected bureaucrats at the EPA." 
 
Emerson unveiled the legislation in Jefferson City, Mo., at the Missouri
Rural Electric Cooperative's State Legislative Conference, and told
attendees, "This legislation is a guarantee that the EPA will not use its
rapidly expanding powers to enact policies which members of Congress know
will create untold hardships in the rest of the country, especially in
Missouri."
 
The other bill, from Pomeroy, takes a slightly different approach to the
same end. It states that, "Comprehensive regulations to address global
climate change must only be enacted—(A) at the direction of Congress; and
(B) if Congress specifically intends such regulations to be implemented."
 
"Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the current provisions of the
Clean Air Act is irresponsible and just plain wrong," said Pomeroy. "That is
why I introduced the Save Our Energy Jobs Act, which would stop the EPA from
moving forward with its proposal."
 

Smog covers downtown Los Angeles in April 2009. (AP File Photo/Nick Ut)
"I am not about to let some Washington bureaucrat dictate new public policy
that will raise our electricity rates and put at risk the thousands of
coal-related jobs in our state," said Pomeroy.
 
In the Senate, where a cap-and-trade bill now little chance of passing, Sen.
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) offered a "disapproval resolution" stating her
discomfort with the EPA's strategy. Three Democrats in the Senate have
joined the 35 Republican co-sponsors. These Democrats are Sens. Blanche
Lincoln (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-Miss.). 
 
Lincoln, Nelson, and Landrieu are considered among the most politically
vulnerable in the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections. 
 
The "disapproval resolution" has been referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, which will consider whether to report it
favorably to the full Senate.
 
"As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue
to believe that this command-and-control approach is our worst option for
reducing the emissions blamed for climate change," Murkowski said in
introducing the resolution on Jan. 21.
 
The EPA originally placed the rationale for its endangerment finding in the
Federal Register on April 24, 2009, claiming the gases were "very likely the
cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic
changes." 
 
The EPA also proposed to regulate tailpipe emissions pursuant to the
finding: "The Administrator (Lisa Jackson) shall by regulation prescribe
(and from time to time revise) standards applicable to the emission of any
air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines, which in [her] judgment cause, or contribute to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare."
 
The EPA's first round of regulations, focusing on tailpipe emissions, is
expected to emerge in March. 
 
The Obama administration, however, is still urging Congress to pass a
cap-and-trade bill. At the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen last
month, Administrator Jackson said her new finding was not a replacement for
cap-and trade. "This isn't an either/or moment," she said. "This is a
both/and moment."